Today

July 23 to July 29

Featured Investigation

Who knows what's best for children: parents or the state?

That question became news when the parents of Charlie Gard -- a British child with a rare disease -- were prevented by their government from pursuing an experimental treatment in the United States. The parents withdraw their claim when the American doctor said too much time had passed, and the boy died after life support was removed. But two other stories kept the government-vs.-parents issue alive.

The Oregonian reported on a couple whose two children were removed from their home not because of signs of abuse or neglect but because the state has ruled their low I.Q.s make them unfit parents. The mother's I.Q. is 72, the father's 66. She formerly worked as grocery clerk, he was a carpet layer but now receives Social Security benefits for his mental disability."I have a learning disability, but it's very, very mild," Eric Ziegler said. Reporter Samantha Swindler writes:

The case lays bare fundamental questions about what makes a good parent and who, ultimately, gets to decide when someone's not good enough. And it strikes at the heart of the stark choices child welfare workers face daily: should a child be removed or is there some middle ground?

Swindler also notes the Oregon couple's case represents a broader trend:

Across the country, a national study estimates that somewhere between 40 percent and 80 percent of parents with intellectual disabilities lose their parental rights.

Meanwhile, the New York Times explored the power of the city's child-services agency to take children from their parents "on the grounds that the child's safety is at risk, even with scant evidence." Stephanie Clifford and Jessica Silver-Greenberg report:

The agency's requests for removals filed in family court rose 40 percent in the first quarter of 2017, to 730 from 519, compared with the same period last year, according to figures obtained by The New York Times.

In interviews, dozens of lawyers working on these cases say the removals punish parents who have few resources. Their clients are predominantly poor black and Hispanic women, they say, and the criminalization of their parenting choices has led some to nickname the practice: Jane Crow.

The reporters cite national studies suggesting that children are often removed for minor reasons:

"We've inflicted the most devastating remedy we have on these families, then we're basically saying, within a month, ‘Sorry, our mistake,'" he said. "And these families are left to deal with the consequences."

Read Full Oregonian Article
Read Full New York Times Article

Other Noteworthy Articles

Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Takes Hits on Multiple Fronts
The Hill, C-Span
The Trump-Russia collusion narrative lost steam while a dark-ops-vs.-Trump narrative advanced. The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said top Obama political aides, notably Samantha Power, made hundreds of unjustified requests to unmask Americans in intelligence reports, including Trump transition officials. And an American businessman testified that Fusion GPS, the oppo-research outfit behind the discredited Trump-Russia dossier, was in the pay of the Russians.

Memos Detail Improper Obama-Era Spying on Americans
The Hill
More revelations from The Hill's John Solomon on Obama-era spying: The National Security Agency and FBI improperly searched and disseminated raw intelligence on Americans, he reports, citing newly declassified memos, which also fault the agencies for failing to promptly delete unauthorized intercepts. Critics say the memos undercut the intelligence community's claim that it has robust privacy protections in place.

Collusion Among Germany's Biggest Carmakers
Der Spiegel
The car diesel-emissions scandal is not a failure on the part of individual companies, but rather the result of collusion among German automakers that lasted for years, an investigation finds. Audi, BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen and Porsche coordinated their activities in more than a thousand meetings, according to company records and interviews. The five are, Der Spiegel says, "something like a 'German Cars Inc.' -- or a cartel."

Smugglers Offer Crammed Big Rigs as ‘V.I.P. Treatment' to U.S.
Associated Press
Behind the deaths of Mexican migrants inside a sweltering tractor-trailer at a San Antonio Walmart lies a durable business model for people smugglers: carrying large groups in big rigs across elaborate networks, and charging thousands of dollars per person. Trucks grew in importance after the North American Free Trade Agreement created the cover of higher cross-border traffic. Women think they're less likely to be raped in a truck, with witnesses present, than in the perilous open desert. That's just one reason stifling truck transit is now considered "the V.I.P. treatment."

We Won't See You in Court: Era of Tort Lawsuits is Waning
Wall Street Journal
Supposedly litigious Americans are filing far fewer lawsuits. Fewer than two in 1,000 people filed tort lawsuits in 2015 over medical malpractice, faulty products and the like. That's down sharply from 1993, when about 10 in 1,000 Americans filed such suits. Reasons for the drop: state restrictions on litigation, its rising cost, improved auto safety and a campaign by businesses to turn opinion against plaintiffs and their lawyers.

Looming Disaster on America's Waterways
Wall Street Journal
Americans will pay more for food and coal energy if the nation's shipping system over river waterways isn't repaired. Many locks, allowing navigation through uneven water levels, are past their 50-year lifespan. One barge can carry the equivalent of the loads hauled by 70 trucks or 16 rail cars. So a broken lock costs big-time.

That Airline Seat You Paid for Isn't Yours
Wall Street Journal
Airlines reassign seating for families who pay to sit together, and for Ann Coulter too: The political commentator erupted in a Twitter tirade this mouth over being bumped from the aisle perch she paid for. But the ugly truth is that premium-seating fees guarantee nothing. First, read the fine print. Next realize that airlines didn't really change procedures at boarding gates to match the marketing. So ... does that mean they lied?